Chummer45:scarmig: Karac: scarmig: Seriously, why do we need health insurance for cuts and scrapes, common illnesses and the occasional broken bone? These should be easy and cheap to fix. Keep the insurance for the big stuff.

Step 1: Go outside, fall out of a tree and break your leg.Step 2: Hitch a ride to the ER and have them set and plaster it. Then take your painkiller prescription down to the pharmacy and get some meds.Step 3: Get back to us about how the bill for all that wouldn't fall under the heading of 'big stuff'.

Been there. Done that. Except mine was a wrist.

I'm not expert. I admit that. But I do think we have people in this country who are smart enough to find solutions that don't expand government power, or force people to do things against their will.

I'm almost certain that there are people in this country smart enough to figure out how to eradicate poverty, balance the budget, cure cancer, and solve healthcare, without any compulsion or intervention by the big bad government. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because the government is bad at everything.

I'd like to ask you a serious question -- what do you think the government's role is? Do you really see the government as a benevolent entity that is just supposed to make sure everyone is happy and give everyone free stuff, without asking for any sacrifice on the part of its citizens? I guess that's what we get for having 8 years of Bush, with his "starting 2 wars while cutting taxes" approach to governing.

Government's role is to protect the geographic region from foreign invasion. To provide objective means of resolving disputes. To capture and punish those who commit acts of violence and various forms of theft.

Those are the simple bullet points. You decide if I'm looking for a handout.

Sadly, I think it is this simple for most people who say they hate the bill.

Which for once makes their ignorance a gift to the Democrats.

We know the House is going to stage a "Repeal Obamacare" vote, and, if Reid is clever, he'll let the senate vote on it too.

Why?

Because this fall, without ever once using the term "Obamacare" the Dems can run attack ads against every republics saying things like "Rep X voted to allow Big Health insurance companies to deny your children coverage for pre-existing conditions" "Senator Y voted to take away your child's right to stay on your health insurance until age 26" "Rep Z tried to let large corporations out of the requirement to provide health insurance for thier workers" "Sen AA voted to let insurance companies spend thier money on big bonuses for executives rather than on your healthcare"

scarmig:Government's role is to protect the geographic region from foreign invasion. To provide objective means of resolving disputes. To capture and punish those who commit acts of violence and various forms of theft.

SkunkWerks:scarmig: There *are* solutions that don't require government expansion. I may not be smart enough to come up with them. But I'd like to think someone out there is.

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of asking insurance companies to behave in what would resemble (to most people) a humane fashion. And it's trickier than you think. Rule number one is: Left to their own devices, they won't.

Hence the need for government coercion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Did you know employers aren't required to provide health insurance at all (at least until this)?

How is it, if the private sector won't act in a human fashion, that anyone has any health insurance at all? There is no mandate to provide it.

Insurance has gotten ridiculous, yes. I agree. But *that* problem won't be fixed by *this* solution. This does not address the real problem, and that is the wildly inflated costs of medical goods and services.

TheHappTroll:Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?

So it's the word "taxed" that you just hate? Being "fined" would be okay, but being "taxed" is GOING TOO FAR!

So you farkers that replied to my comment seem to think that most parents in this country have children to get tax deductions. People only buy a home and or get married for tax deductions. You think those are the same as paying for health insurance? I don't see this as the same thing as a deduction.

TheHappTroll:So you farkers that replied to my comment seem to think that most parents in this country have children to get tax deductions. People only buy a home and or get married for tax deductions. You think those are the same as paying for health insurance? I don't see this as the same thing as a deduction.

No, no one said anything like that. What people did was point out that there are plenty of provisions already in the tax code where inaction results in a higher tax bill.

scarmig:SkunkWerks: scarmig: There *are* solutions that don't require government expansion. I may not be smart enough to come up with them. But I'd like to think someone out there is.

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of asking insurance companies to behave in what would resemble (to most people) a humane fashion. And it's trickier than you think. Rule number one is: Left to their own devices, they won't.

Hence the need for government coercion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Did you know employers aren't required to provide health insurance at all (at least until this)?

How is it, if the private sector won't act in a human fashion, that anyone has any health insurance at all? There is no mandate to provide it.

Insurance has gotten ridiculous, yes. I agree. But *that* problem won't be fixed by *this* solution. This does not address the real problem, and that is the wildly inflated costs of medical goods and services.

Why are the costs wildly inflated? Anyone know?

Because big business and big government have conspired to create cartels that turn you into a piggybank?

TheHappTroll:So you farkers that replied to my comment seem to think that most parents in this country have children to get tax deductions. People only buy a home and or get married for tax deductions. You think those are the same as paying for health insurance? I don't see this as the same thing as a deduction.

No, I don't think people only buy a home or get married to influence their tax bill. That said, it does affect some people's decisions. And I think the same thing will happen with the shared responsibility payment. A lot of people would buy health insurance regardless of it. Some people will buy insurance solely to avoid it.

Lando Lincoln:TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?

So it's the word "taxed" that you just hate? Being "fined" would be okay, but being "taxed" is GOING TOO FAR!

I'm just repeating the word because that's what it's called here. IMHO healthcare for everyone is not the same as education are national security in regards to what the government should provide.

ManRay:dickfreckle: Something else I noticed this morning - LOTS of regular city newspapers are using "Obamacare," some in their bolded, Big News headlines. Not FOX, but the same paper that used to deliver you reasonable news 15 years ago.

What the fark is that all about? What's wrong with a factual "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill"? What about the actual farking acronym? "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.

The Administration started making an effort "take back" that word at the beginning of the year. Also, maybe now that the specter of it being overturned is behind us, they are cool with calling it Obamacare.

Fine - except it's a term originally meant to cheapen the bill and provide chum for the right's media consumers, then picked up by the straight media, too. Even if Obama is "taking it back," it's unprofessional journalism. Granted, we also attach "gate" to every story about a staffer leaving a particularly vicious burrito sh*t when someone else is waiting for the stall.

TheHappTroll:Lando Lincoln: TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?

So it's the word "taxed" that you just hate? Being "fined" would be okay, but being "taxed" is GOING TOO FAR!

I'm just repeating the word because that's what it's called here. IMHO healthcare for everyone is not the same as education are national security in regards to what the government should provide.

Why is that? If you don't have your health and die, you can't possibly enjoy liberty, pursue happiness, exercise your free speech, practice your preferred religion, get married, etc. If anything, it's the most paramount right people have.

TheHappTroll:Lando Lincoln: TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?

So it's the word "taxed" that you just hate? Being "fined" would be okay, but being "taxed" is GOING TOO FAR!

I'm just repeating the word because that's what it's called here. IMHO healthcare for everyone is not the same as education are national security in regards to what the government should provide.

Well, I believe that healthcare is as important as protecting people from burglars and putting your house out if it's on fire, so I'm perfectly fine with having a universal healthcare system that is paid for through taxes. As they say, "if you don't have your health then you don't have anything" so I fail to see why healthcare is viewed as optional in our country.

qorkfiend:scarmig: Government's role is to protect the geographic region from foreign invasion. To provide objective means of resolving disputes. To capture and punish those who commit acts of violence and various forms of theft.

To provide for the general health and welfare of the people.

Article 1 Section 8 says The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

dickfreckle:Fine - except it's a term originally meant to cheapen the bill and provide chum for the right's media consumers, then picked up by the straight media, too. Even if Obama is "taking it back," it's unprofessional journalism. Granted, we also attach "gate" to every story about a staffer leaving a particularly vicious burrito sh*t when someone else is waiting for the stall.

Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.

Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!

Dave: that's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.

TheHappTroll:qorkfiend: scarmig: Government's role is to protect the geographic region from foreign invasion. To provide objective means of resolving disputes. To capture and punish those who commit acts of violence and various forms of theft.

To provide for the general health and welfare of the people.

Article 1 Section 8 says The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Lando Lincoln:TheHappTroll: Lando Lincoln: TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?

So it's the word "taxed" that you just hate? Being "fined" would be okay, but being "taxed" is GOING TOO FAR!

I'm just repeating the word because that's what it's called here. IMHO healthcare for everyone is not the same as education are national security in regards to what the government should provide.

Well, I believe that healthcare is as important as protecting people from burglars and putting your house out if it's on fire, so I'm perfectly fine with having a universal healthcare system that is paid for through taxes. As they say, "if you don't have your health then you don't have anything" so I fail to see why healthcare is viewed as optional in our country.

Burglers and housefires are issues taken up at state and local levels not the federal government.

Lando Lincoln:TheHappTroll: Burglers and housefires are issues taken up at state and local levels not the federal government.

And this means...what?

It means that Congress cannot regulate burglaries and housefires via the commerce clause. However, you may be forced to buy homeowner's insurance and to pay for firemen and police via a tax...even if President Obama says it isn't a tax.

Actually, the decision was the first time...in...forever that the SC has limited the commerce clause. That's nice.

I_C_Weener:Lando Lincoln: TheHappTroll: Burglers and housefires are issues taken up at state and local levels not the federal government.

And this means...what?

It means that Congress cannot regulate burglaries and housefires via the commerce clause. However, you may be forced to buy homeowner's insurance and to pay for firemen and police via a tax...even if President Obama says it isn't a tax.

Actually, the decision was the first time...in...forever that the SC has limited the commerce clause. That's nice.

It's done nothing of the sort; the Commerce Clause parts of the opinion set no sort of binding precedent.

The Democrats let the health insurance lobbyists write the bill (like the sycophantic throne-room eunuchs they are) because passing something like a single payer system that is not-for-profit, beneficial for the people, and didn't allow wall street to thrust it's gluttonous proboscis into it would require integrity and hurt their re-election chances.

I'm living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford health insurance. But now I can get vouchers to subsidize a plan that I'm forced to purchase from these health insurance bandits; so they'll get to suckle from the sweet government titty, and I'll have to eat beans and ramen to come up with whatever amount the government doesn't cover.

Lando Lincoln:TheHappTroll: Burglers and housefires are issues taken up at state and local levels not the federal government.

And this means...what?

Some people in this country still live in areas without police and fire protection. I think it is their "right" to do so. The feds don't tell everyone here that they have to live in incorparated townships or cities or they will be taxed more. In fact I would say most people that live "off the grid" will pay much less tax.

Alphax:Generation_D: J. Frank Parnell: KellyX: Somehow the White House needs to really doing a major push to promote the truth about this

They're pretty much powerless when everyone is dependent on TV networks to inform them. Anything they do to promote the truth will just be ignored or distorted. And state-run media would have people screaming communism like nothing else.

What this entire thing really put the spotlight on is how corporations control the media, and through that, what the average citizen thinks. It's nothing new of course, but i think it's a wake up call for some who didn't realize the extent before.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both fought like hell for their side in these battles.

If you want to be president you better bring a gun to a knife fight.

Obama acts like its beneath him to even battle.

People notice.

When the SC decision was announced yesterday, Obama gave a speech afterwards(played in full, live, on NPR). He took the opportunity to fully explain the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

Explaining the Act should have been 3 years ago.

Right now he should be curb stomping Republicans and soothing Americans that everything will be alright. We want a leader not a damn college professor.

Go back and watch Clinton or Reagan do their jobs. There are reasons why those guys, or Kennedy, or Roosevelt et al were widely able to get their policies through (Clinton was very good at it, you'll note his downfall wasn't policy related). The reason was, they all were expert salesmen, father figures, strong personality leaders.

Obama's got it in him, but flips over into his scholarly sober slightly patrician mode far far too often. I know that is what "intelligent" people want to hear, but then you all wonder why half the country doesn't trust or like him. This is why. Half the country wants to be told what to do, and be inspired seeing it.

Obama can make a speech with the best of them, but his standard mode is condescending smart-man talk. Its no damn wonder half the country doesn't trust him, or that he can't frame his argument in a way that people understand. They aren't looking for logical arguments. They're looking for emotional leadership. He has it in him, but he isn't offering it. Which comes off as douchey.

The Democrats let the health insurance lobbyists write the bill (like the sycophantic throne-room eunuchs they are) because passing something like a single payer system that is not-for-profit, beneficial for the people, and didn't allow wall street to thrust it's gluttonous proboscis into it would require integrity and hurt their re-election chances.

I'm living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford health insurance. But now I can get vouchers to subsidize a plan that I'm forced to purchase from these health insurance bandits; so they'll get to suckle from the sweet government titty, and I'll have to eat beans and ramen to come up with whatever amount the government doesn't cover.

True enough. CEOs on Wall Street are evil...lets give them money. CEOs in oil are evil. Lets not change how we treat them. Healthcare costs are astronomical...lets reward the CEOs and companies with 30 million new customers...by fiat.

The Democrats let the health insurance lobbyists write the bill (like the sycophantic throne-room eunuchs they are) because passing something like a single payer system that is not-for-profit, beneficial for the people, and didn't allow wall street to thrust it's gluttonous proboscis into it would require integrity and hurt their re-election chances.

I'm living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford health insurance. But now I can get vouchers to subsidize a plan that I'm forced to purchase from these health insurance bandits; so they'll get to suckle from the sweet government titty, and I'll have to eat beans and ramen to come up with whatever amount the government doesn't cover.

If an insurance company spends less than 80% of premiums on medical care and quality (or less than 85% in the large group market, which is generally insurance provided through large employers), it must rebate the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit. This 80/20 rule is commonly known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule.On June 1, 2012, insurance companies nationwide submitted their annual MLR reports for coverage provided in 2011 to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Based on this data, insurance companies that didn't meet the 80/20 rule will provide nearly 12.8 million Americans with more than $1.1 billion in rebates this year. Americans receiving the rebate will benefit from an average rebate of $151 per household. So you hate it why again? Because it saves you money?